Zeng Lam Wang v. U.S. Attorney General , 218 F. App'x 852 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEBRUARY 21, 2007
No. 06-13356 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
BIA Nos. A79-087-085 & A79-087-086
ZENG LAM WANG,
XIAO JUN HUANG,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(February 21, 2007)
Before BIRCH, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Zeng Lam Wang and Xiao Jun Huang petition this court to review the BIA’s
denial of their motion to reopen their claims for asylum based on their fear that
they will be subject to coercive population control measures if returned to China.
The board issued a brief letter denying the couple’s petition. It stated: “While the
submitted materials reflect that the officials may be more strictly enforcing the
population control policies to individuals residing in the respondent’s home
province, the respondents[] provided no evidence regarding the persecution of
citizens returning to China with foreign-born children.” It then referenced the
State Department’s latest China Profile “indicating that returning Chinese nationals
with foreign-born children are not subject to special treatment.”
The BIA’s analysis is facially incoherent. If officials in Wang and Huang’s
home province are “more strictly enforcing population control policies,” and
returning Chinese nationals “are not subject to special treatment,” then Wang and
Huang have every reason to believe they will be subject to these new and stricter
population control policies.
The BIA also referenced Matter of C-C-, 23 I&N Dec. 899 (BIA 2006), in
which the board discredited an affidavit by Dr. John Aird. Id. at 900–01. Wang
and Huang relied in part on an affidavit by Dr. Aird. We note that two circuits
have already criticized the BIA for rejecting without sufficient reasons the
evidence presented in Dr. Aird’s affidavits. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556,
2
565–66 (3d Cir. 2004); Zheng v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 955, 961–63 (8th Cir. 2005).
Even if the board’s subsequent and more thorough analysis of Dr. Aird’s affidavit
in Matter of C-C- redresses the concerns raised by our sister circuits, the BIA has
not addressed any of the other evidence presented by the petitioners. We therefore
grant Wang’s petition for review, vacate the BIA’s denial of Wang and Huang’s
motion to reopen their claims for asylum, and remand this case for further
consideration.
PETITION GRANTED. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3